Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00825
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Jackson, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases against various federal and state court judges were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later filings without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Teri L. Jackson, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state court judges. He challenged his conviction and how courts handled his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury, which his complaints did not show. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying, citing several legal doctrines and cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return any further filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:21-cv-00825
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits suits over certain violations committed under state authority. The related case numbers were 21-cv-00823-PJH, 21-cv-00824-PJH, 21-cv-00825-PJH, 21-cv-00846-PJH, 21-cv-00847-PJH, 21-cv-00848-PJH, 21-cv-00849-PJH, and 21-cv-00908-PJH. The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same district with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not resolve the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the courts’ handling of his other cases.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification note
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.